Can turbo chargers play to? Sounds like a lot of fun.
Tom

contact lake racer with extreme magazine (art) see if would like to do this sounds right up his alley they are the guys that want to make a differnce in this boating industry

A few problems, first, this is clearly at least a week of dyno testing and 2-3 people working on it full time, adjusting, changing fuel routing for each system, different routing for BSFC on each system, etc so even somebody like Westech, who has a great testing facility, have to be compensated for there time and I doubt free press will be enough for this type of work. Remember, it's hard for smaller companies to get anything else accomplished when there working on a project of this magnitude.

Some things to think about:
If an engine is not stock, then which way is it modified, each direction will favor one over another, whether it's cam profile, head runner size, etc., how is this kept to a standard?

What about boost psi? Some work better at certain boost levels and therefore a standard stock engine would not be a clear representation of all of the products mentioned.

How does carburated represent everybodies product? Doing 2 systems from each mfg just gets even more costly. It's also more difficult, if there dependent on stand alone ECU's, who maps them, what method do they use, who will pay for each ECU system? If you want stock (ex. 502 Mag MPI or 500HP EFI), then you need all the stock electronics including the ECU. Obviously, Procharger, Vortech and us all build "kits" where there suppose to be bolt on. This is basically for EFI only because there are only a handful of motors that don't need re-jetting from naturally aspirated vs. supercharged. If were talking EFI, then it should be a package that somebody offers, Procharger does not reflash stock ECU's so should they be allowed to send a modified ECU done by somebody else, it's not there practice? The product should represent what companies are selling. Whipple, Vortech and basically everybody else modify the ECU. Procharger supplies a FMU with typically a 15lb window from high to low, what level is it tested at and reported?

Peak hp should not be the key componet as thats a very little componet in the "overall" equation. There should be a score on a few things such as fitment, packaging, appearance, total power (entire rpm range), drive-ability, idle, noise, etc. If your only testing for the best "overall" blower or just for the one with the highest peak efficiency, that should be done on a blower dyno and nothing else. If your testing packages, everything should be evaluated. When measuring total power gained, you should average from idle to redline. Some will give 50% more just on top at peak rpm while others will generate over 50% down low and whatever on top (positive dispacement).

Who supplies the base engine? This is a sticky situation, if it fails, who pays for it? What if it's not from the product on top, part failure, who assumes the cost? What if dyno operator kills it, whos liable? 2 minutes WOT on a brand new GM "crate" engine is not very wise. It will need a few hours of break in time before it can endure that type of test. I would recommend 30-60 second accel test over a 3500rpm range, 2000-5500rpm (depends on cam given).

After each test, the engine must be put back to stock configuration and retested in stock form, as the power will vary after run time and what others have done in previous testing.

Once again, how are you measuring knock? Nobody makes an affordable knock meter for aftermarket, it's simply not available. The adjustable meters have very little accuracy to show level 1 detonation. There are 3 levels, it's not even accurate at level 3 knock which is audible. So if you want true knock detection, you need far more sophisticated knock detection equipment than what most have available. Too let you know, you can burn a valve or piston before detonation so detonation should not be the only factor.

Tom brings up a good point, what about turbos? Are we testing packages because nobody makes a turbo "package" for marine/gasoline engine that are just bolt on (that I'm aware of). There are many parts available and many that do turbos, but there not typically bolt on packages, does that matter? Tom, I've always said that when the turbo system is done correctly, there is no peak hp comparison, turbos when designed for the proper type of application are by far the most efficient force induction methods available. They will easily win the peak hp test if designed properly. So again, does that represent that it's the best product?

Thanks,
Dustin

Tomcat, to let you know, PSI does not have anything smaller, they have only the one unit with a few different variations. If you want to test blowers of that size, we've had one for 10 years that is bigger and better, it would certainly show very well in any test of big hp.

Dustin

Sounds like this is getting way too many variables and loop holes.
Why not make it simple.
Pick a stock application that the blower manufactures make a kit for i.e. 502efi. From what I hear these manufactures claim they have bolt on kits so it should be pretty straight forward.

1. Dyno base engine with stock exhaust.
2. Bolt on kit as manufacture instructions indicate. Note any difficulties in installation.
3. Dyno with kit, no tweeking aloud remember these are suppose to be bolt on kits. Measure HP and Torque curve through entire range.
4. Run endurance test, i.e. 5, 10 or 15 minutes what ever someone thinks is a good test at WOT.
5. Remove kit and pull heads to check for detonation.

Keep it simple!

However, I would say NOT using an EFI, but rather a stock engine with a carb only. My reasoning is; wouldn't the ECU of an EFI or MPI be too easy to modify or "cheat" with to get an edge over the other competitors ECU's??? Put a STOCK HOLLEY boost ref carb on the engine being tested---where only carb size, jetting, power valves can be changed. The Merc 500HP would probably be a good choice for this.

It's just an idea----I just wanted to show the flip side of a carbed engine vs a fuel injected engine.

This is starting to get like drafting legislation! More good comments though.

1) Likely two weeks of dyno time would be needed, but installing the kit is the participant's job. That way you're not tieing up the shop's people. Also, no one can say that the installation wasn't done right.

2) It sounds like we should use a stock 502 MPI engine. Carb kits could be done more easily by removing the EFI from a 502 MPI than vice versa (adding MPI to a carb engine). The stock Mercury dual plane intake would be the base manifold for carb kits.

If stock compression is a little too high for Roots blowers, it limits the boost they can run, but that's a fact in the stock bolt-on situation. We are not changing pistons or heads.

3) If a kit includes a reflashed ECU then bring it. If not then either don't use one or the cost is added to the "price as tested".
Will participants bring a more aggressive ECU than they might include in a kit? Probably, but that is common in dyno tests isn't it. "Here's your big number, now jet up a couple sizes to be safe." If an FMU is set for peak HP, will we know on the dyno that the idle is poor? Maybe.

4) If a participant only wants to enter one of EFI or carb, that's fine. We would still see a comparison between blower types within that one group.

5) Particpants will bring their own carbs already jetted for supercharging. You can't run stock carbs so there is no way around this loophole. Blowthrough carbs especially need to be modified. The cost of the kit will be increased by the cost of these carbs. And by cost we mean what it costs to buy it already modified from someone like Nickerson. Don't tell Joe Public to buy a carb and then spend all summer trying to get it jetted properly; that's not bolt-on.

Since Roots and Screw compressors come with their own intakes in the kit, centrifugal guys can bring a substitute intake. (They may think a single plane intake has fuel distribution advantages.) But the cost must be added to the price. No porting allowed on the intakes.

6) This is a dyno test and readers would tend to focus on peak HP, but graphic comparisons of torque curves and average HP over a wide range of RPM are common reporting techniques in such articles. Scoring the other features of the kit would be subjective, but any advantages and benefits of those features could certainly be discussed in the article.

7) Supply of a fresh base engine and liability for repairs would be carried by the magazine. Keeping the engine out of detonation is ultimately the dyno operator's job. If the magazine and the dyno shop can't agree on these terms then there will be no test.

8) rv is right, we need to keep it simple, but nothing is ever simple, and nothing worth doing is ever easy. Have you read the rules for PHR's Engine Masters competition in this month's issue?

Maybe we need a no tweaking rule or a time limit for testing. If you gamble and show up with too lean a carb or too agressive an ECU program, and the dyno operator has to pull out of the run because of problems, you lose. But that really seems too harsh. Joe public wants to know what these systems will do with the best combination of pulley size, fuel and timing. Then he wants to phone the manufacturer and order that combination. That's "bolt-on."

9) This is a test of supercharger kits. If there is a bolt-on turbosupercharger kit out there, and the manufacturer wants to take part, why not?

Dustin:

You're worrying too much! Someone reading between the lines might think that you are concerned about losing the peak HP test. But as you said, that's not the only thing that matters. I would expect the magazine to do a little writeup on the features and advantages of each system at the beginning of the article, and then summarize the results within that context at the end of the article. Your story would be told.

Engines are tested and tuned on dynos all the time without the benefit of the best knock sensor you describe. That's one reason for adding jet before the engine leaves the shop, so the customer doesn't have a problem. Is this ideal? No, but the alternative is to say that only a few people in the country can dyno engines and that just isn't true.

Since the participants would know that the engine was going to be run on the dyno for minutes rather than seconds they would jet it up to be safe. No one will want to be the participant that destroys the engine.

I think we have beat this to death. IF a magazine wants to sponsor and publish a Supercharger Shootout, they will be making the rules and I'm sure they would welcome input from all potential participants before proceeding.

Thanks to all for your comments. I think it has really improved the idea to thrash it out here. OK you editor types lurking out there in cyberspace, take it away!

Tom

tomcat, well your reading invisible print if thats what your getting. I'm the only supercharger mfg here lending any support or information and basically the only mfg here (on OSO) that would be competing, if I was worried about our product, I surely wouldn't be broadcasting all our info and all my contact info all over the internet, that would be fatal. I'm giving you real or potential problems that you would have with the test you submitted. No company will jump at such a test without knowing all the criteria's first.

As for other people dynoing, it's a fact that very few have proper equipment to sense for proper air fuel ratios or true detonation, anybody can buy a dyno and run it. Adding a jet to make it safe? In some cases, that may do zip! Many don't have proper dyno's to "simulate" a boat run, some can't run the water cooled headers, etc.

If you think a publishing company is going to assume all liability, I've got some Nerbraskan ocean front property I would love to put sale ya! When they test boats, the boat mfg or the company representing the test assume the risk of damage, an engine would be the same. Also, I wouldn't want a bunch of people coming in and out of our place, using our tools, congesting our dyno for two weeks. But hey, if you can find them, meet everybodies criteria, I'll be there. But because your talking about a supercharger shootout which to the public will be a representation of all superchargers (meaning every system one offers), then security and criterias need to be met, your talking years of negative press for the ones that dont win, yet it may not be a direct representation of all the products. See your assuming no risk, while Whipple, Vortech, Procharger, Blower Shop, Littlefield, Holley, Imco, CMI, Dana, Gil, Stellings, etc. assume all.

Thanks,
Dustin

Most Joe Public guys are going to buy these kits and many of them won't even pull their engines to do the installation. I would like to see each kit installed on HP500 motors to the manufacturers recommendations and then run on the lake with a radar gun. The same boat must be used with the same set-up and baseline HP500 speeds. Use the stalker gun with the acceleration computer and publish the curves and best top end speeds. Then compare system costs and come up with the BEST system and the most bang for the dollar. Bravo 1 non labbed props of any pitch can be used, and the same prop must be used for the acceleration as for the top end tests. Whipple, Nickerson, Pro Charger, Vortech, and any other manufacturer or builder who has a "BOLT ON PACKAGE" can be used. I think that would give Mr. Public some good insight on ease of installation, cost and some performance expectations from each package in terms of top speed and acceleration. To much BS with the dyno in my 02.

Dustin - I think you hit the nail on the head when you said "years of negative press for the ones that don't win." That's the real problem. I'm not thinking like a manufacturer because I'm more of a scientist in my day job, and scientists are all about running the experiment and seeing what happens. We don't worry too much about the consequences.

I have been around long enough to see magazines host supercharger shootouts, intake manifold shootouts, exhaust manifold shootouts, cam shootouts, even nitrous shootouts. I can remember at least two nitrous articles where the magazine deliberately kept increasing the nitrous level until the engine expired. So recognizing and accepting the risks is nothing new.

There must be other dynos besides yours that are capable of conducting these tests. Arizona Speed and Marine, Lingenfelter Performance Engineering, Gale Banks etc.

Wette Vette - Making the comparisons in a boat has the same types of problems and risks. Each installation takes at least a day, so different systems would be tested on different days. We all know what a difference a day can make on the lake. At least on the dyno you can correct for different weather conditions. And wasn't there a test like this in a magazine recently where chine walk with the increased power levels screwed up the test?

My final thought on the matter. Factory class racing is an ongoing shootout the puts different manufacturers' hull designs to the test, with equal power from a sealed spec engine. It is a much less "controlled" experiment, compared to a dyno shootout. Factory class racing is more difficult to regulate, and is definitely influenced by driver skill and Murphy's Law. It costs a lot to race and stuff gets wrecked, but winners are declared, articles are published and Joe Public loves it.

In their advertising everyone claims to be the best. Racing results are used to support these claims. And even though winning the Factory class does not mean you have the best overall boat, it provides useful input for the potential buyer of a high performance boat. The race was run in the light of day, the sanctioning body does their best to prevent cheating and the result is clear to all. That's why so many manufacturers are there, despite the risk and cost.

Manufacturers of engines, engine components and power adders also claim to be the best in their advertising, and dyno results are often used to support these claims. But for Joe Public, their is no way to know if the dyno results quoted in advertising are legit. They were not "sanctioned", if you will. Sometimes magazines see fit to shift into the "Consumer Reports" mode and conduct an independent test of these products.

To get back to the intent of my original post on this thread, all I'm saying is that there is a need for such a test to validate the claims made for marine supercharger kits.

Thanks,

Tom